Inequality of Opportunities in Education in Eswatini By Nhlanhla Zulu Abstract This study quantifies inequality of opportunity in education in Eswatini using Multiple Indicator Cluster and Demographic and Housing Surveys. Using the “ex-ante” approach, the study identifies potential sources of inequality at all levels of the general education system in Eswatini and how these interplay with learner achievement. The study finds that, on average, circumstances account for a low portion of the variance (approximately 23.7%) in learner attainment. This measure is higher for learners aged 15 to 18 years. This means that, as the learner grows, the influence of unequal circumstances on educational attainment increases. In addition, family background variables like household wealth and education of household head are the main sources of inequality of opportunity. Therefore, opportunity equalising policies are required at all levels of the general education system in Eswatini. Key Words: Inequality of opportunity, ex-ante 1. Introduction Educational achievement is considered as a fundamental input into a person’s functioning and capacity to flourish there has been great interest by individuals and policy makers in the distribution of opportunities in education. Despite the growing interest of policymakers as well as economists in equality of opportunity; its empirical applications remain scarce. The main reason is that implementation of equal opportunity policies requires the identification of the contribution of circumstances and effort to observed inequality (Jusot, Tubeuf, and Trannoy, 2010). Moreover, studying the differential intensity of opportunity inequality across regional areas, professional categories or even income classes, can give clearer information on the priorities of a redistributive policy (Checchi, Daniele, Peragine, and Vitorocco, 2005). This then raises two main questions: what causes these inequalities? How can they be measured? The theory of inequality of opportunity states that sources of inequality of opportunity are split into circumstances (unfair) and efforts (fair sources). As proposed by Roemer (1998) differences in outcomes can be attributed to partly circumstances which are factors that are economically exogenous to an individual and efforts which are due to a person’s responsibility. However, there is no exact definition of what constitutes circumstances and what constitutes efforts; for example, shortly after independence, education in Eswatini “was characterized by poor quality, uneven distribution of schools, high dropout and repeater rates, serious shortages of teachers, and inappropriate and highly academic curricula” (Magagula, 1990). In essence Eswatini inherited inequality traps that systematically excluded certain sections of the population from gaining access to quality education and it is believed that these factors are what contributed to poor performance in schools. The National Development strategy recognises the importance of meaningful participation of the country’s citizens toward economic development. Also, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which is grounded in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and international human rights treaties and emphasises the responsibilities of all states to respect, protect and promote human rights with a strong emphasis on the empowerment of women and vulnerable groups. To achieve this, a measure of inequality of opportunity is required and will enable policy makers to identify and mitigate unequal opportunities. Eswatini has been underperforming in the human development aspect. The United Nations Development Programme estimates the human development index of Eswatini in 2018 at 0.588, and this value falls to 0.414 when adjusted for inequality in education, health and income. This measure places Eswatini in the bottom 5% of medium human development countries with a potential of being a least human development country. Furthermore, the human development index has only increased by a mere 9.7% since 1990. The issue of a low HDI measure speak to the educational and income inequalities that exist in Eswatini. The Gini index of Eswatini has been increasing since 2000 which may imply that Swaziland’s policies particularly educational policies were not formulated around equity. This paper proposes to a tentative answer to the issue of measuring inequality of opportunity by calculating an index of the power of circumstances. This will allow us to explain the influence that the accumulation of pre-determined circumstances have on educational achievements. The key focus of the paper is on the following key surveys namely the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS): MICS 3 (2010) and MICS 5 (2014) and the Demographic and Housing Survey, DHS (2007). These surveys contain country level data on household information which will enable us to map the influence of socio– economic background and biological factors on educational attainment and track this influence over 7 years 2. Literature Review Rising inequality has caused a deep wedge in society, creating an apparent distinction between those who are extremely wealthy (the ‘haves’) and those that are economically disadvantaged (the ‘have nots’) and this is seen as the ‘greatest injustice of modern times’ (Juan-Pedro and Garces-Voisenat, 2015). There are several reasons why inequality would be seen as an injustice. Firstly, inequality can distort the distribution of human capital tilting comparative advantages towards low skilled economic activities, thus reducing return on investment and the ability of a country to benefit from technological advancement (Vila- Artadi and Sala-i-Martin, 2003). Secondly, high levels of income inequalities have the potential to tip the socio-political structure of a country. High-income disparities trigger financial and political crises because wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fortunate few (Stiglitz 2012; Krugman, 2007). Lahouij (2017), Shin (2012), and Panizza (2002) argue that high levels of income inequality can be associated with low levels of economic growth and Eswatini is no exception, as findings indicate that countries in the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) region could double economic growth if income inequalities could be brought down to that of countries with similar levels of development (Basdevant et al., 2012). Finally, inequality leads to the emergence of market inefficiencies because the economically disadvantaged cannot afford to invest (Galor and Zeira, 1993, Piketty, 1997). Reich (2012) provides an analysis of how market imperfections arise because of income inequalities and proposes policy recommendations of how best they can be reversed. (Garces-Voisenat, 2015) suggests that reducing inequalities in human capital (education and health) should be at the forefront when attempting to solve the problem of inequalities, particularly income inequalities and studies indicate that the most important determinant of the distribution of income and life opportunities is education. 2.1 Inequality of Opportunity The rise of inequality in modern times has inspired the development of numerous schools of thoughts on equality, not the least inequality of opportunity (Piketty, 2013). These schools of thought try to explain, contextualise, and provide ideas on how to understand and create an equal society. Evidence shows that early efforts focused on developing models for formulating theories that would equalise opportunities for achievement in a given population (Ramos and Van de gaer, 2013; Fleurbaey and Schokkaert, 2009). A growing body of literature shows that growing inequality is a direct consequence of the actions of government and business and not a natural occurrence (Stiglitz, 2013). Up until the 1960s, policy focused on achieving equality of welfare or utility, or equality of outcomes without focusing on the things that bring about the desired equal outcomes (utilitarianism). Documented evidence suggests that the concept of inequality of opportunity arose from a debate that brought about arguments on how to utilise public policy in order to achieve a fairer distribution of outcomes of interest such as income, health, and wealth (Lo Bue and Idzalika, 2016). The equality of opportunity theory presents two views: 1) a conservative view that states that everything is effort, meaning that a person can always overcome a situation if they are determined enough and 2) a radical view that states that everything is circumstance and everyone is completely a product of the circumstances they are born into. In a study conducted in 1998, John Roemer provided arguments that reconciled these schools of thoughts and he adopted a political stance that placed the responsibility on society to define what it calls ‘circumstances’ and use that definition to describe equality of opportunity. Roemer (1998) called for policy reforms that made it possible to eradicate those factors that are beyond an individual’s control and to level the playing field while at the same time allowing outcomes to respond to efforts and hold individuals accountable for their actions. Stiglitz (2013) advises that such policies should focus on continually developing innovative education and training models, to build new skills that are sufficient to meet labour demand and facilitate the inclusion of young people into the job market, otherwise known as opportunity equalising policies. A formal definition of inequality of opportunity according to Roemer (1998) was that an individual’s